Case 2306381/2025 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Miss. S. Stevens (2) Mr. J. Griffiths v Karun Enterprises Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2306381/2025
- Decision date
- 15 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sudra
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms. J. Forecast, Mr. N. Westwood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Miss. S. Stevens (2) Mr. J. Griffiths
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously decided that the Second Claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal claim was well founded and upheld. The First Claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and was dismissed.
The Tribunal also upheld both Claimants' claims for unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of extra shifts, accrued but outstanding annual leave entitlement in respect of extra shifts, and failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The short judgment records liability outcomes only and does not set out remedy figures or detailed reasons.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment states ordinary unfair dismissal was well founded and upheld for the Second Claimant. | Upheld | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Judgment states constructive unfair dismissal was not well founded and was dismissed for the First Claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment states unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of extra shifts was well founded and upheld for both Claimants. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Judgment states accrued but outstanding entitlement to annual leave in respect of extra shifts was well founded and upheld for both Claimants. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Judgment states not being provided with a written statement of employment particulars was well founded and upheld for both Claimants. | Upheld | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.